RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Opponents Wanted



Message


LazyBoy -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/29/2012 12:45:10 PM)

Turn to Kom, good luck everyone




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/30/2012 12:50:00 PM)

I don't have the possibility to load the turn until this evening. But I can see the map in the dropbox and I would be able to make some plans already if I knew who controlls which regime. Am I right that: Mean - Russian town names; Lazy - French town names ? Who moves after Lazy? Regime with Arabic or English town names?

Edit: Ok, loaded turn and got the answer already.




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/30/2012 9:49:14 PM)

Turn to Iron.




ironduke1955 -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/30/2012 10:37:34 PM)

Did I get a invite to the Drop Box the game is not on my list of games ?




Meanfcker -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/30/2012 11:29:56 PM)

You are invited.




LazyBoy -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/31/2012 12:07:20 AM)

Ya we are under way[:D]




ironduke1955 -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/31/2012 5:03:33 AM)

Kom states turn to iron there are two turns in the file 1b Lazy that I am sure is not mine 1d Kom I took to be mine because of the designation (d) I am the fourth player tho the Kom I took to be a mistake. My capital turns out to be Philadelphia ? is this correct since my CC tells me his Capital is Philadelphia.




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/31/2012 7:55:40 AM)

Your turn should be 1d Iron (1d Kom is probably a mistake, it should be 1c Kom). I don't know what went wrong, since I'm sure that I put your turn into dropbox. I can check it soon and just in case I'll also e-mail your turn to you.




LazyBoy -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (10/31/2012 11:39:28 AM)

My mistake, Kom should be c not d, sorry.
The turn dated 31/10/2012 should be your's




LazyBoy -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/3/2012 5:51:04 AM)

Turn to Kom




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/17/2012 1:22:01 PM)

We decided to surrender. Excellent play from your side, Mean and Lazy, plus a few severe mistakes by me resulted that our (especially mine) situation is bad. I don't believe that I'm able to come out of this. My only excuse is that this was my first PBEM game [:)]

If it's OK to you, Iron and I are ready for another game. Only this time we would like to create the map.




ironduke1955 -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/17/2012 4:13:03 PM)

Like to mirror Kombrig's sentiment thanks for game I am up for a rematch




Meanfcker -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/17/2012 9:23:12 PM)

Thanks for a good game guys.
Ironduke, I must commend you on your effort to cut supplies to my invasion force at Philadelphia. Although it failed, that attempt was bold and well executed, one of the best that anyone has ever tried on me. Of coarse I am up for a rematch, and of coarse you may generate the map and go first, contingent upon Lazyboy's approbation.
The main thing I look for in a map is that no one has any major isolated areas. We wish for the game to be decided by skilled gameplay and not by map placement.
Again, good game.
Meanfcker.




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/17/2012 9:47:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker


quote:

Ironduke, I must commend you on your effort to cut supplies to my invasion force at Philadelphia. Although it failed, that attempt was bold and well executed, one of the best that anyone has ever tried on me.


That was me. [:)] I should have done it one turn earlier and I should have used more medium tanks instead light ones. Maybe then the result wouldn't have been a complete failure.




LazyBoy -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/17/2012 10:11:16 PM)

Good game, thanks.

I am happy for a rematch.
I am not sure who was the Holly empire,but the only mistake I could see was your invasion was on too narrow a front, making it vulnerable to being cut off, mind you I do this as well.




Meanfcker -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/17/2012 10:25:32 PM)

Hey guys, if I may recommend something learned from hard experience, your Supreme Commander should always go first. This way, if the situation changes, he can call a halt to any impending offensives, or change plans due to enemy action.
Meanfcker.




ironduke1955 -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/17/2012 11:30:21 PM)

Lazy I was the Holy Empire and yes I left the flank a exposed. A lesson learned I should have listened to my CC. A broadfront outlook especially on a map that large is the best option. In answer to Mean Kombrig was CC




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/18/2012 2:53:30 PM)

Ok, I sent all of you invitation.

Turn order:
1) Sultinate (Kom)
2) Paris (Iron)
3) Nippon
4) Peoples Republic

Good luck!




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/22/2012 1:27:50 PM)

Mean, Lazy, how is it going? Who's your CC this time?




Meanfcker -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/23/2012 12:20:24 AM)

I am Supremo.
I have sent the game to Lazy.
Good luck and have fun.
Meanie.




LazyBoy -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/23/2012 3:38:05 AM)

Turn had not arrived, got it now




LazyBoy -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (11/23/2012 6:57:07 AM)

Turn to Kom




LazyBoy -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (12/1/2012 6:25:10 AM)

I have stared some partime night shifts so my turns wil be delayed Saturdays, Monday's and possibly onr other night.

I dont get home until 1.15 am.

It wont be much delay but thought I would let you know




ironduke1955 -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (12/2/2012 3:08:45 PM)

Just surrendered well done Mean and Lazy well played




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (12/2/2012 4:42:29 PM)

Too bad, I was thinking that the game was not decided yet... But it seems that Iron did some unsuccesful production decisions (concentrating on heavy artillery). My role as a supremo was really minimal. I just proposed a general strategy and left almost everything else to Iron to decide.




ironduke1955 -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (12/2/2012 5:03:10 PM)

I just had a well entrenched city with AT Guns taken out by 16 unsupported Light Tanks. I just can't stop laughing at it. 4 AT guns 4 Heavy Art 76 rifle 40 Staff 2 machine guns 5 submachineguns 2 motors all well entrenched in a city([;)]Tanks in house to house fighting). And not one single Tank was lost[8|] I know the soviets developed a system of using tanks in Urban area's A company of infantry with some combat engineers would support each Tank and these tanks would be heavy tanks with formidable firepower KV1 Stalins and later T-34's. There are similar results all along my front, so I clearly misjudged the Mechanics of this game. Perhaps I should try playing the game and forget what I have learned from history.




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (12/2/2012 5:24:19 PM)

I guess we can imagine that 16 tanks took out the 4 AT guns and after that the infantry panicked and left the city. [:)] But yeah, I agree that unsupported light tanks entering well entrenched city should suffer severe losses even from infantry. Infantry can attack light armour with hand grenades, molotov coctails etc.




Meanfcker -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (12/2/2012 8:29:04 PM)

Good game guys.
I feel for the tank city thing, but that is not why you lost.
Look back at the map on turn 1, and pay particular attention to my northern most city, Tottori.
If you guys had both concentrated 60% of your combat production into taking Tottori and forcing me back to the next natural defense line, you would have been able to liberate over 1/3 of my oils and 1/3 of my raws ( which would then help to feed your war machine). I would have been on the strategic defensive right from turn 2 or 3.
That is just one of several strategic errors made in this game.
There are almost no players in this game who see this stuff.
Perhaps we might switch up the teams for the rematch.
I will take Kombrig and we will see how well Lazy has been learning in the Meanfcker School of Strategy.
Let me know if you guys are interested. It is Sunday afternoon. I could get it going by tonight.
With all of your permission I would like to post a full critical, After Action Review of this game on my website.

Meanfcker.




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (12/2/2012 8:44:57 PM)

I'm always ready to play and I have nothing against AAR on your site.

However I disagree with your analysis. I believe there can be more than one approach and our strategic plan was simply different. Most of our front against you had good defensive terrain and we decided to remain in defense there (my initial advances there were simply to distract your attention - this was actually success, because you built fighters in the north obviously in order to counter my non-existent dive bombers [;)]). We planned that if we both concentrate against Lazy and defeat him then you will be an easy prey. However Iron had bad luck when choosing his tactics how to stop Lazy's initial assault... That is why he gave up the game. I think if he would have countered Lazy with medium tanks and dive bombers, then the game would have continued and I'm not sure who would have won it.




kombrig -> RE: 2 v 2 [In progress] (12/2/2012 8:52:47 PM)

And to be honest, I don't see why loosing Tottori would have cost you 1/3 of your resources. Maybe 5-6 six oil and 5-6 six raw. Not a loss which would force you into strategic defense. To occupy these resources it would have taken 3-5 turns, but at the same time we would have left free hands to Lazy.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.050781E-02